Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.182.167; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net
Message-ID: <42977CE7.4080205@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 15:02:47 -0500
From: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Sump tank - Velocity version
References: <list-965509@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-965509@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

That gives us two data points.  Yours and Paul's first flame out.  It's 
entirely possible that Paul did NOT have vapor lock, and never did fix 
his problem.  Also possible that there's something else about your 
system that makes it different enough from his to not manifest the 
problem.  I don't know.  All I can do is the best I can with the data 
and experience I've got ... Jim S.

Perry Mick wrote:

>>There are several down sides to returning fuel to the sump (aggrivated 
>>quite a bit as the size of the sump decreases).  
>>    
>>
>
>Don't know where this comes from? My sump is only 1 gallon and contains two 
>fuel pumps. Never had an issue with fuel return to the sump in 520 hours now.
>I had a minor problem at one time with sump vent placement. Had a potential 
>major problem once when I had the sump vent temporarily plugged - BIG NO-NO!
>
>Perry
>
>  
>
>>> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>> Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>  
>